Pages

Friday, April 27, 2012

Inexperience - in challenging times for America, and at a time when world's peace is at stake, is definitely a factor in determining who out next commander in chief, and leader of the free world should be. And it is irrational to question those who raise voices of concern over Mitt Romney's non-record in the foreign policy field.

However, Obama's record as commander in chief and president over the past three and a half years should also be exposed and examined. If this was an election, a choice between two candidate that do not share much in common and that express a totally different world view than each other, American voters would either have to trust both of them based on their positions and promises, or stick to the candidate that comes closer to their world view and opinion on the issues. Nonetheless, the circumstances in this years elections and given the historical facts, the narrative and the choice given to the electorate is certainly a discussion that puts the candidates views and positions on a disparate path.

Mitt Romney's foreign policy and national security credentials should be applied, based on the positions he is taking in this election cycle and the 42 page manifesto he put out, after a period of briefing on this issues by former Us intelligence and defense officials and by the contacts he has forged with foreign leaders, his competence and passionate love for America.

Despite President Obama's campaign tactic, highlighting on one side the president's successful mission of ordering the killing Osama bin Laden and the public perception, considering him as a decent and trusted leader, at least when it comes to foreign affairs and national security. And questioning on the other side, Mitt Romney's experience and quotes when he was running as a uncompetitive candidate or his inability to strike out a voice of sanity in focusing on foreign affairs (as if this was his job requirement) as Governor of Massachusetts. President Obama's reocrd as president and on the other side of the aisle, Mitt Romney's positions and foreign policy stance are incomparable.

The attempt by the Obama team to compare Obama's and Romney's positions, or rather Obama's record vs. Romney's promises and worldview, in an effort to portray Governor Romney as the inexperienced candidate, and the out of touch isolationist running against the incumbent, gutsy President, is like mixing apples and oranges. But in this case its rotten apples with unripe oranges. Romney characterized as the unripe orange - that its taste and readiness are still questionable, and President Obama as the rotten apple - that is visibly distasteful and that stands out as unbearable to eat or to keep.

Barack Obama's record as President of the US, on foreign policy is as visible as his disastrous handling of the economical situation. And while he may be seen as the president that ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden, although he might has the killing instinct based on his record of killing Jobs and American entrepreneurship. The number of failures and misconduct on foreign affairs is noticeable but utmost misrepresented.

The handling of the relationship with Israel, that had ultimately buried any sustaining chance of at the very least an ongoing peace process in the Middle east, abandoning Mubarak as a honest and trusted partner in the middle east in the midst of the legitimate protests in the streets of Cairo but uncertain alternative. The inconsistency that led to the result of Islamists leading the Egyptian government and recognizing the Muslim Brotherhoood as partners and kingmakers in a rocky and unstable region, that could lead to more violence and extremism, and deal a blow to the peace efforts and an end to the security coordination between Israel and Egypt in an unnecessary step to end the 31 year Camp David peace treaty.

Not to mention, the weak leadership role the Obama has taken in the world, and leading from behind or led into acts not as a joint effort but as a response to events. If its stopping the Libyan Butcher in time, or holding Assad accountable to mass murder of innocent civilians picking up their heads, or imposing the harshest sanctions on Iran in isolating Iran with the western world and sanctioning the Iranian central bank in time and simply not carrying that "Big Stick", VP Biden is talking about,as a credible military option in public.

The list goes on and on... and my colleague Adam Kredeo, is already doing a magnificent job on a daily basis, highlighting the administrations policies and misconduct of the issues that matter most to our best allies and friends.

I observed this week, in a closed meeting in the city, a great quote that was said by one of the Republican freshmen in Congress: "Politicians are not bad. it's the bad politicians that are bad." President Obama, is not bad because he is a Democrat or because he is the incumbent that ought to be challenged, but simply because he is a bad party member and a very bad president.

And, the bottom line is: Mitt Romney is running and should be inspected - as an alternative to President Obama. And therefore, he ought to be faced with tough questions and be held accountable to his promise, in taking the right positions that will put this country back on track and to fulfill its leadership role in the world, in one of the most challenging times in history. While President Obama should be examined by his sole record over the past three and a half years, and not by his promises or distinctions he draws somestimes successfully, with those challenging him.